§ The result
HackerEarth leads Cognisess on all 7 criteria.
Under rubric v1.0, HackerEarth opens a 16-point lead on Cognisess, 46 to 30, with both scored in the Assessment cohort. HackerEarth leads every one of the 7 criteria, Cognisess none of them, and the closest of the 7 is Data Governance Disclosure, Cognisess 42 to HackerEarth 52. Article 11 Technical Documentation is the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing at once (Cognisess 25, HackerEarth 55, 20% weight), but it accounts for only 37% of the weighted advantage HackerEarth holds across the 7 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
Cognisess
UK talent-analytics platform that scores candidates and employees with 50+ game-based and questionnaire assessments and weighted job-fit 'profilers', can auto-pass or auto-reject applicants against score thresholds, and runs recorded video interviews with optional DeepLearn video analytics.
Vendor profile
HackerEarth
HackerEarth is a technical-hiring platform that auto-scores coding assessments under AI proctoring, runs FaceCode live coding interviews with AI-generated summaries, and offers OnScreen, an AI video-avatar interviewer that scores candidates against a fixed rubric.
§ The record
Cognisess and HackerEarth are both filed under Assessment AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Video interview.
Both are in scope of NYC LL 144, Illinois HB 3773, EU AI Act, Colorado AI Act and Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Cognisess | HackerEarth |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | GB | US |
| Founded | 2011 | 2012 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 37% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Cognisess 25 · HackerEarth 55
6.0 weighted points to HackerEarth
18% weight · 54% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Cognisess 20 · HackerEarth 35
2.7 weighted points to HackerEarth
15% weight · 65% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Cognisess 20 · HackerEarth 32
1.8 weighted points to HackerEarth
12% weight · 75% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Cognisess 42 · HackerEarth 56
1.7 weighted points to HackerEarth
15% weight · 84% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Cognisess 42 · HackerEarth 52
1.5 weighted points to HackerEarth
8% weight · 93% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Cognisess 40 · HackerEarth 57
1.4 weighted points to HackerEarth
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Cognisess 32 · HackerEarth 42
1.2 weighted points to HackerEarth
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -16.2 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 16.2 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -16 beside that -16.2.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Cognisess minus HackerEarth.
| Category | Weight | Cognisess | HackerEarth | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 25 | 55 | -30 | -6.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 20 | 35 | -15 | -2.7 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 20 | 32 | -12 | -1.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 42 | 52 | -10 | -1.5 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 42 | 56 | -14 | -1.7 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 32 | 42 | -10 | -1.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 40 | 57 | -17 | -1.4 |
| Total | 100% | 30 (F) | 46 (F) | -16 | -16.2 |
§ Evidence
Cited sources and documented absences, criterion by criterion.
An absence is a finding, not a blank: the reviewer looked for a named artefact and recorded that it is not located. Where a source sits is a fact about hosting only.
| Criterion | Weight | Cognisess | HackerEarth | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 2 | 1 | — | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 5 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 5 | 0 | Sources on a separate domain | 8 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 21 | 5 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 34 | 5 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
Cognisess has 26 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 21 with a source URL, 5 documented absences; HackerEarth has 39 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 34 with a source URL, 5 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Cognisess sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 65 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 26 for Cognisess, across 5 distinct source domains, and 39 for HackerEarth, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Cognisess last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- HackerEarth last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
HireAIScore scores are editorial research, not legal advice, and no vendor pays for placement, scoring or removal — see the methodology, conflicts policy and terms.
§ Where next